Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
remkin

The Great Askarov Poll

The Great Askarov Poll  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Russian phenom goalie Yaroslav Askarov fall to #13?

  2. 2. IF Askarov falls to #13, SHOULD the Committee pick him?

    • No. Goalies are just too risky and slow to develop. There will be a forward at #13 still better than the goalie risk there.
    • Yes. He's just too good and given our situation and history, the time is right, and this goalie is right. Take that goalie.
  3. 3. IF Askarov falls to #13, WILL the Committee take him?

    • Yes. They will take the plunge if he's there.
    • No. The risk is just too big. The committee will have a list of high upside forwards big enough that they'll pick one of them instead.


Recommended Posts

Posted this in the Draft thread a while ago, but it works here and it took some work, so...

 

First round goalie picks since 2001:

 

2001: Rick DiPietro. #1 overall. The posterboy for "danger, danger Will Robinson". Not only using the #1 pick but signing him to a massive contract. Total Bust.

2002: Cam Ward: #25. While in the end he was not the super elite guy we thought he'd be, on this list, he is far from the worst. Arguably the closest thing we've had.

2002: Kari Leghtonen: #2. Sort of like Cam, nice long NHL career. Really good in spots, but not the stud the #2 pick might have been.

2003: Marc Andre Fleury: #1. Overall he justifies the first round pick, arguably even #1. 

2004: Al Montoya: #6: 168 NHL games. Not good.

2004: Devan Dubnyk: #14: 520 games, very good overall.

2004: Marek Schwartz: #17: 6 nhl games. Bust.

2004: Cory Schneider: #26: 409 games: very good, until he wasn't. 

2005: Cary Price: #5. Outside of Crosby at #1, he probably should have gone #2. 

2005: Tuuka Rask: #21. 536 NHL games. Star. Hit.

2006: Jonathan Bernier: #12. 370 NHL games. 

2006: Leland Irving: #26: 13 NHL games. Bust. 

2006: Semyon Varlomov: #23: 493 NHL games. Still playing. Literally, in the ECF at this typing.

2006: Riku Helenius: #15: 1 NHL game. Bust.

2007: NONE.

2008: Chet Pickard: #18. None. Bust.

2009: NONE.

2010: Mark Visentin: #27: None. Bust.

2011: NONE.

2012: Andre Vasilevskiy: #19: 290 NHL, Stud.

2012: Malcom Subban: #25: 66 NHL games.

2013: NONE.

2014: NONE.

2015: Ilya Samsonov: #22. Has Caps starter role now.

2016: NONE.

2017: Jake Oettinger: #26. Still trying to make it, playing AHL.

2018: NONE.

2019: Spencer Knight: #13. Too soon to tell.

 

This is how I interpret this list, but Knight and Samsonov could swing things a bit for the better:

 

Very generally: Franchise goalie odds about 22%, Serviceable to good goalie: 34%, Bust: 44% Good to Great: 56%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Canesfanforever said:

What was that ?  I could not hear you over the evidence that i just posted that proved my point  yet again .  We can do this all day if you want to .   Im just  letting you  off   easy . 

you not making your point in the slightest.  But lets keep this going.  

 

What is funny about Rask, is Toronto gave up on him because he was turning being a voo doo goalie.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, remkin said:

Posted this in the Draft thread a while ago, but it works here and it took some work, so...

 

First round goalie picks since 2001:

 

2001: Rick DiPietro. #1 overall. The posterboy for "danger, danger Will Robinson". Not only using the #1 pick but signing him to a massive contract. Total Bust.

2002: Cam Ward: #25. While in the end he was not the super elite guy we thought he'd be, on this list, he is far from the worst. Arguably the closest thing we've had.

2002: Kari Leghtonen: #2. Sort of like Cam, nice long NHL career. Really good in spots, but not the stud the #2 pick might have been.

2003: Marc Andre Fleury: #1. Overall he justifies the first round pick, arguably even #1. 

2004: Al Montoya: #6: 168 NHL games. Not good.

2004: Devan Dubnyk: #14: 520 games, very good overall.

2004: Marek Schwartz: #17: 6 nhl games. Bust.

2004: Cory Schneider: #26: 409 games: very good, until he wasn't. 

2005: Cary Price: #5. Outside of Crosby at #1, he probably should have gone #2. 

2005: Tuuka Rask: #21. 536 NHL games. Star. Hit.

2006: Jonathan Bernier: #12. 370 NHL games. 

2006: Leland Irving: #26: 13 NHL games. Bust. 

2006: Semyon Varlomov: #23: 493 NHL games. Still playing. Literally, in the ECF at this typing.

2006: Riku Helenius: #15: 1 NHL game. Bust.

2007: NONE.

2008: Chet Pickard: #18. None. Bust.

2009: NONE.

2010: Mark Visentin: #27: None. Bust.

2011: NONE.

2012: Andre Vasilevskiy: #19: 290 NHL, Stud.

2012: Malcom Subban: #25: 66 NHL games.

2013: NONE.

2014: NONE.

2015: Ilya Samsonov: #22. Has Caps starter role now.

2016: NONE.

2017: Jake Oettinger: #26. Still trying to make it, playing AHL.

2018: NONE.

2019: Spencer Knight: #13. Too soon to tell.

you were saying @Canesfanforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in general rolling the dice on a first round goalie is a risky proposition for sure. It is also worth reposting the Cane's recent darts at the goalie board:

 

Since 2010 Cane's goalie picks:

Mahalak (11)

Alshuler (12)

Olson (12)

Ned (14)

Booth (15)

Lafantaine (16)

Helvig (16)

Makiniemi (17)

Kucherski (18)

Kotchetkov (19)

 

So our second and later picks have not rocked lately either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11, 12s, and Lafantaines were pure busts from the start.

 

Ned, looks more and more like a bust the closer he gets to the NHL

Booth had a strong ECHL time but hasnt done anything since

Helvig had a really strong 2 years post draft Juniors season then died in minor hockey

Makiniemi didnt look great until getting promoted last season.  Now he seems to have made the right adjustments / got the right coaching to be successful

Kucherski cant get playing time

Kochetkov has cooled off tremendously after a very strong 18-19 season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that there is another side to the goalie miss rate in the first round. 

 

1. After Price and Raask were taken in the first round in 2005, there was a run with 4 first round goalies in 2006. Really seemed that after that, GMs largely stopped taking goalies in the first round and there was a long gap where only 2 goalies were taken first round in 5 years. Both flamed out. Since then, (until Knight last year), no one took a goalie higher than 19 (Vasilevskiy). 

 

2. While taking goalies in the first round is risky, just about all picks risky, and in general the further down the board the more risk. Almost all goalies recently until Knight were taken in the 20's (or 19 with Vasilevskiy). So the risk is lower there since it's a relative risk as taking goalies later is. We think of drafts in rounds, but really it's a serial list. #1 has a much higher hit rate than #30. 

 

3. There is also a difference in the perceived quality of these prospects compared to each other. Kochetkov sort of broke out in a tournament, while Askarov, ironically has been stellar almost everywhere he's played except the last WJT. And over a small sample size he's looking very good in the #2 league in the world. Still a risk, but not all of these goalie prospects are equal just because they were picked in the first round.

 

To be clear, these are just mitigating factors. There is no question that going for a goalie at #13 caries risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Canesfanforever said:

You proved my  point dude .  Now it's time to put the baby to bed .    Forwards and Defense men  who never panned out 

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1225109-nhl-draft-the-50-biggest-busts-in-nhl-draft-history

 

you still arent proving your point.  

 

Half that list of 1st rounder drafted goalies are busts or replaceable level players.  3 are legit franchise goalies: Rask, Vas, and Price.  2 were in and out starters, fringy guys and 2 are still unknown.  

 

You are using bleacher report, which is opinion based, as a source? interesting.  Please source some the Score or Fansided articles too while you are at it.  To drive it home, the number of defenders and forwards drafted high, way out number the number of goalies.  So you are comparing apples and oranges, still.  Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, remkin said:

There is no question that going for a goalie at #13 caries risk.

As would it be for taking a forward or a defense man .     If they are not getting the proper  training  and ice time  then it could hinder almost anyone .   The  Stigma  towards goalies   has been a thing  for a long time .   Which would kind of explain  why some gm's   wait till the 3rd or later rounds to take a goalie   when   and hope they pan out .   You can see  constant redrafts of  drafts  previously  on youtube where people  would change the order of who should of  went  1st   cause of who did  pan out  .     I have seen  2015   redrafts  where  Aho   would of been   in  the 1st round   in the top 10 .     Teams that invest in good scouting  and  have plenty    usually end up  with the most  success at drafting  .   Teams that dont    end up   struggling .  

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous ways one can look at the questions in this poll. Personally I still favor taking Askarov. My major caveat is our scouting. In my view, unless a top forward drops, there is no consensus, obvious forward pick at #13. That is certainly true looking at various public scouts, and mock drafts. However, if our scouting crew has a guy or two that they see as a much better forward than the others, that is in that next tier, and he's there at #13, that would likely push us to that guy. If not, then Askarov would look likely.

 

But the reasons to take him for me are a sort of perfect storm of reasons to go outside of the normal truth: don't pick goalies in the first round because it's too risky, which I also agree with. Here is why IMO this time is different:

 

1. Askarov is the BPA.  A lot of people favor BPA if that guy is clearly the best. Well Askarov is widely viewed as the BPA after the top 5, and some put him in the top 5. I think it's also hard for scouts to ignore the goalie thing, so he may well be the #4 or #5 BPA. So getting the #5 BPA at #13 is a chance at huge value. 

 

2. This is our shot at Askarov. He will not be there in the second round, and trading down likely won't work because word has it the Oilers with the pick after ours, will grab him if we pass).  Basically, we are arguably in the slot where he goes. Just worked out that way, but seems almost ordained in some weird way that we just happened into the slot most likely to take him but not too high. 

 

3. We need a franchise goalie. We've lacked it forever.

 

4. Askarov is not just the highest ranked goalie in the draft. He's the most anticipated goalie since Price. He's proven his ability at all levels and even early in his KHL career as a teenager. He is even more highly ranked than Spencer Knight. He can still fail spectacularly, but the upside is insane.

 

5. He looks to be NHL ready earlier than most. This is not just based on his stellar start in the KHL, but scouting reports too.

 

6. We are not picking in the top 10. The forwards in the top 10 of the draft are mostly too good to pass on. There are very very good forwards at #13, but there is no obvious guy there. It just seems like the perfect seam to take this uber goalie prospect. Much later he's gone, much earlier there is a forward not to pass on.

 

7. We don't seem to be great at obtaining a top 10 goalie either through the draft or trade or UFA. The range is Mongo bust to Mrazek decent. Ward solid to, well that list of draftees up there. The best goalie we've traded for, drafted or signed UFA never played for us. 

 

8. The risk on Askarov is not as high as the list because he's deemed better to start and has proven it across many leagues and age groups. The list says that you at least get a good goalie 56% of the time, with a franchise goalie 22%. But Askarov is, IMO better than those odds. And if you get that franchise goalie, you make the playoffs a lot. 

 

9. It fits our high risk, high reward style of recent drafts, in spite of the no goalie thing.

 

10. We have a deep farm and young NHL. We have a deep system of potential future players at all positions.....except one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always a risk at any position.  The last 'sure thing' i ever saw in a draft was when the Boston Celtics drafted Len Bias second overall back in '86.  You just have to go with what looks like the best bet and hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corey Pronman put out his final rankings and has Askarov as 8th OA prospect in his high-end rankings. He has a special and elite category above high-end.

 

Mercer, Zary, and Jarvis was in his High-end/Very good bubble 

 

Lundell and Quinn were in his very good category.  Lundell is down around 18. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

Somebody is going to need nervous pills if we don't draft Askarov.

:nailbite:.   Or a nervous beverage or two on draft night. 

 

For me, I think it would be a let down, but if we do go forward it will still be a good player. Luckily we ended up buying a nice pick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, remkin said:

I'm usually interested in the should/will breakdown. This poll it is interesting.

 

With 18 votes in, it is flipped. 83% say we should take him, but only 39% think the committee will do it. 

 

Should be an interesting draft, especially for us, to see if he filters down to us, and of course, if we take the plunge. And then, if not, who we take.

 

On 9/27/2020 at 10:25 AM, remkin said:

Just noticed that the Should and Will Yes and No are in opposite locations in each case. Should still be OK, just keep in mind that the yes/no order is reversed.

 

I bring it up in part because early on there is a difference of opinion on the Should and Will question.

 

I think you fell victim to the reversed Yes/No's, lol. I'm seeing agreement between "should" and "will".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking about it in terms of probabilities, or raffle tickets. We all agree that the odds of a "goalie ticket" winning at around the 13th spot are much lower than the odds of a "forward ticket" winning. Just to explore the principle, lets say the chance of a typical forward hitting is 65% and the odds of a typical goalie hitting is only 35%. But the odds of Askarov hitting jumps up to 55% given how much stronger a prospect he is than the typical top goalie in a draft. 

 

There's also a different distribution curve for the two positions. Askarov probably has a greater chance of flaming out than the forward, but he also has a greater chance of becoming a star.

 

All things considered, the forward ticket might be "safer". But given the Canes situation and how hard it is to get a top goalie, I'll take an Askarov ticket that is 20% better than the best goalie ticket in a typical year. The opportunity cost of passing on Askarov is too high to go with the forward in that situation, imo.

      

disclaimer: I have no idea of the exact odds, just threw out something to illustrate my thinking.

 

edit: oh, and I don't think Askarov will still be there at #13. On the one hand, GMs won't want to risk being tagged with a relatively early 1st round draft pick bust. But they will also be conscious of the possibility of carrying the legacy of having passed on the next Cary Price. 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Lake, I have doubts Askirov will still be available at 13. That would mean all 12 picks before us fealt that the needed a chance at a high end forward or defense men more than a shot at a high end/franchise goalie. Even the #1 pick who could be a franchise player for the Rangers could fail🙏.

As for should we take him if he falls, all things considered yes. I think our current prospect pool can survive a year without a 1st round pick and not drop heavily.

And for the final part, yes I think the committee will take him if he is there. The fact that they traded away our 1st rounder when there was still a chance we wouldn't get the Leaf's this year tells me they would take the gamble. That is as long as our scouts haven't seen something to concern them about Askirov or wondering why players fell so far. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This burning desire of needing to see the Canes  get good  pretty  much starts at goalie .    As we saw last night   or at least some of us who were still watching the finals  of the stanley cup .   What  happened  is the team with the better goalie won a cup . 

 

Outside of  chicago  that won the cup with  a bad goalie in that one year when they won it  .   Almost every team that wins the cup  does it  with great goal tending .  Now what happens  from here on out with the lightning is all up to them on how to handle things . 

 

It seems to be the recipe for success  more often than not  the past 20 or so years .    Me as a fan   ,  i've   been  stressed out  over  our pick  and just need to see things  go right for  the team  .    I understand  it is highly possible  that the Canes could  miss out on a chance of a life time  and that is what bothers me the most  about the draft  in some years .

 

If the Canes  stood no chance ever  of picking Askarov  and were picking top 20  then id  be  a little less stressed out  ,  Sure i'd  love for the canes to do what was needed  in order to secure that pick   but knowing  it's not likely   would put me more in a grumpy  mood instead of  feeling stressed  out .     Rangers  fans  must be ecstatic over the idea on picking laffy ,  or some other teams that is below carolina  that already have a goalie  they are mainly  focused on  getting their team a cant miss prospect  player . 

 

Mean while  as we all count the days  till that  fateful  night  I ponder about  something .    That something is what if  the canes Have Askarov  to pick  but skip him over a player of some sort .     Well  I can  mention that the last time i was this invested on who the canes could take  was way back when  the canes  went after  elias  lindholm  and my dumbass  was all in on Valire Nichushkin .   I will admit i was very wrong about Nichushkin .    But  in the end Carolina  years later  Did   get their  Star Russian winger  by a stroke of luck  in Andrei Svechnikov . 

 

It's funny how  things like that happen sometimes .   Kind of like that old rolling stones  song ,  You dont always get what you want , but if you try some time   you might find , you get what you need . 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

 

 

I think you fell victim to the reversed Yes/No's, lol. I'm seeing agreement between "should" and "will".

This is why I can't have nice things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the "will he still be there at #13?" question, ugh, yesterday Greg Wyshynski, who's national, but is a fan of NJ, said he recommends that NJ take Askorov at #7. Just one guy spouting off? Well apparently Elliot Friedman is on board saying there is interest. 

 

Could just be subterfuge, but that's two pretty connected guys. 

 

Then, even if NJ passes he'll have to get past Buffalo, Minnesota, and Nashville. Thinking I might have to change my "will he" vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackwood received very high praise in NJ and across the league. He was mentioned for the Calder.

 

NJ has so many needs that I think taking Askarov would be a mistake/too risky. NJ needs more can’t miss type picks with their recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kyrule said:

Blackwood received very high praise in NJ and across the league. He was mentioned for the Calder.

 

NJ has so many needs that I think taking Askarov would be a mistake/too risky. NJ needs more can’t miss type picks with their recent history.

New Jersey also  has 3 picks this year in the draft  as well .   They are the kind of team with  Lindy Ruff  as the coach that would  pick Askarov  at 7th  and have  to deal out Corey Schneider   out  just to protect Blackwood .     

 

A carolina package to move to number 7th  would be considered an over pay   and New Jesery is looking to  rebuild quickly .

 

Im thinking   The canes 1st and Canes (rangers)  2nd round  pick and   Jake  Bean . is what  the Devils to consider  letting the canes  move to that spot . 

The question is what will Ottawa do ? 

Edited by Canesfanforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...